Keir Starmer’s EU Reset: A Strategy Built on Falsehoods

[Social Media]

 

Keir Starmer’s proposal to reset the UK’s relationship with the European Union has raised significant concerns, with critics arguing that his strategy is unlikely to secure a better deal for Britain. Labour’s willingness to offer concessions in exchange for a more cordial atmosphere and an annual summit with the EU evokes memories of post-Brexit negotiations.

 

Much like in the aftermath of the Brexit referendum, British emissaries are traveling to Brussels for discussions, facing familiar criticisms of the UK's negotiating tactics. The UK's expectations are being met with disdain behind closed doors, as the EU sets preconditions on topics of interest before Britain can address its own concerns. There are even rumors of a return for Olly Robbins, who played a prominent role in Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations, further deepening the sense of déjà vu.

 

The fear surrounding Starmer’s plan to “reset” relations with the EU stems from Labour’s perceived naivety about international diplomacy. The EU has a vested interest in drawing Britain into a series of one-sided concessions, and they are skilled negotiators who can achieve that goal. Unsurprisingly, Starmer has expressed his desire to avoid a “running commentary” on the negotiations and hopes for a “respectful” tone. By keeping the details hidden, it appears he is attempting to avoid shedding light on the substance of the talks.

 

At the start of any negotiation, it is crucial to have a clear understanding of what is in the national interest and what can be conceded to achieve those objectives. However, it seems Starmer may not be applying this necessary level of scrutiny. Labour’s stated goals are to “reset” relations, reduce “friction,” secure a foreign policy and security agreement, and establish a food and veterinary arrangement. Yet, the first two goals are merely matters of tone, easily achieved by conceding significant points to improve the atmosphere, as was the case during negotiations under Theresa May and Rishi Sunak.

 

Securing a foreign policy agreement benefits the EU more than the UK, given that Britain is already allied with most EU member states through NATO. Such an agreement could bind Britain to dealing with foreign policy through EU channels, enabling the EU to set terms for military procurement and drawing the UK into supporting the EU’s own military ambitions.

 

These plans, recently criticized by NATO’s outgoing secretary general, seem to offer little benefit to Britain. The necessity of a food and veterinary agreement is similarly unclear, as unprocessed agricultural exports make up only 0.5 percent of the UK's total exports, and most exporters have already adapted to post-Brexit trade rules. While the EU may seek to make Britain a captive market for its more expensive food products, it is not apparent why this would benefit the UK.

 

Labour’s approach seems likely to involve conceding on these issues without securing valuable returns. The EU has made it clear that topics such as foreign policy and food standards cannot be discussed until Britain agrees to their demands, including a youth mobility agreement and guaranteed access to British fishing waters. The idea of allowing further EU access to UK fishing grounds should be a non-starter, yet Labour’s willingness to negotiate raises concerns. The youth mobility agreement on offer is similarly lopsided, as it would allow young people from any EU country to work in the UK, while British youth would only gain access to one EU country.

 

This negotiation has an odd dynamic in which Britain seems poised to make all the substantive concessions in return for little more than a better diplomatic tone and an annual summit. These gains could easily be revoked if the EU later decides to apply pressure on the UK again. Labour’s romanticized view of the EU as a progressive project obscures the realities of power politics. The party sees Brexit as a failure, and Starmer’s concessions are framed as part of the process of reintegrating Britain into the global order.

 

However, the EU is far from the idealized institution Labour envisions. It is a community that sets aside law when it serves its agenda and is quick to pressure weaker countries. Successful negotiations with the EU require clarity, firmness, and a willingness to walk away when necessary. Unfortunately, it appears that Labour is unwilling to adopt this approach. As a result, Britain may soon find itself locked into another unfavorable deal, one that will become impossible to reverse once agreed. The time to challenge this strategy is now, before it is too late.

 

Based on a report from Daily Telegraph 2024-10-05

 

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

It dawns on the Telegraph that giving up the multiple concessions the UK had enjoyed within the EU wasn’t a good idea.

 

Expect someone in their editorial office has lost the keys to their bulging project fear filing cabinets.